Posted on 12/26/2010 9:06:00 AM PST by cougar_mccxxi
Reporting from Seattle — It seemed a straightforward case: A man with a string of convictions and a reputation as a drug dealer was going on trial in Montana for distributing a small amount of marijuana found in his home — if only the court could find jurors willing to send someone to jail for selling a few marijuana buds.
The problem began during jury selection last week in Missoula, when a potential juror said she would have a "real problem" convicting someone for selling such a small amount. But she would follow the law if she had to, she said.
A woman behind her was adamant. "I can't do it," she said, prompting Judge Robert L. Deschamps III to excuse her. Another juror raised a hand, the judge recalled, "and said, 'I was convicted of marijuana possession a few years ago, and it ruined my life.' " Excused.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Jury nullification; where the vote of the people DOES mean something.
I found a site dedicated to the subject and its worth checking out.
Jury service. Ugh. I know how necessary it is, but it seems once you´ve served here in LA you´re called again and again, year after year. There must be someone else out there.
Thank you. Nice quotation.
I like the rationale of the one woman who refused to convict on the grounds of how life-ruining a drug possession conviction can be. This is true freedom.
The intent of a judge was to be little more than a moderator between prosecution and defense. The jury was supposed to pass judgement in criminal cases.
In 1895 the supreme court ruled that jurors need not be informed of their rights and its been all downhill from there.
Most of the American people know full well how stupid the Reefer Madness nonsense is and how nonsensical it is to put people in jail for pot possession. I see decriminalization happening within the next ten years for sure.
The only thing better than a fully informed juror, is one who knows EXACTLY what to say to the court.
What’s a little organized crime among friends? It’s not as if the pushers ruin other peoples’ lives and hand out free samples to kids to get them hooked after all...
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
-John Adams
The last few times I was called the judges made it crystal clear that they would NOT TOLERATE any of the jury nullification nonsense in THEIR courts.
The judges may not like it, but I don’t see that they have a choice.
Agreed. But even more importantly jury nullification is our best and sometimes only defense against unjust laws and oppressive government if we can all remember to demand a jury trial if we are accused and remember our rights as jurors.
Remember, you can ask for a jury trial for something as “trivial” as a seat belt infraction;
“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”-Amendment 5, US Constitution, Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
so they will just keep looking until they find a group of jurors that is guaranteed to find the defendent guilty? what a COS. I would lie.
I agree with jury nullification 1000 percent in cases like this.
Exactly. Get on the jury; it only takes one vote to set an innocent person free.
So, the state alleges that this is a big-time bad-assed major drug dealer.
All they could find of his massive inventory was 1/16 of an ounce of marijuana.
What’s the threshold for the rest of us? Nanograms? Picograms? A single TCH molecule picked up by passing downwind of a doper on a crowded street?
This is malicious prosecution, nothing more, nothing less. The State has no real case.
“when a potential juror said she would have a “real problem” convicting someone for selling such a small amount.”
They have *no right* to know your opinion in advance. Say whatever it takes to get on a jury, then do what you as a citizen decides is best.
Poor babies, They and their courts are already the laughingstock of the population. This'll work well for 'em.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.